In the wake of legislation signed by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner that would allow for the use of taxpayer money to cover an unlimited number of abortions anytime for any reason, members of the Illinois Republican Congressional Delegation voted to advance bipartisan legislation H.R. 36 – the Unborn Pain-Capable Child Protection Act – to restrict abortions 20 weeks or more after conception, the point at which unborn fetuses can feel pain.
Representatives Peter Roskam (IL-06), John Shimkus (IL-15), Randy Hultgren (IL-14), Rodney Davis (IL-13), Adam Kinzinger (IL-16), Darin LaHood (IL-18) and Mike Bost (IL-12) released the following statement:
“Henry Hyde championed the rights of the unborn through the Hyde Amendment, which expressly prohibits federal funding for abortions. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2005 to 2014, the infant mortality rate in the United States dropped 15 percent. Much of this progress can be attributed to technological advancements in medicine that gives children born prematurely and with various medical issues a fighting chance. H.R. 36 protects children like Micah Pickering who was born at 22 weeks and is a thriving toddler today. Read his story here.
“In a reversal of long-standing Illinois policy, Governor Rauner has let down Illinois taxpayers and the unborn by signing H.B. 40. Today, the Illinois delegation stands together in our support of H.R. 36 to protect human life.”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a party’s entire state congressional delegation criticize their own party’s governor like that before. Or, at least, excluding the time during Rod Blagojevich’s arrest/impeachment.
And, like with Blagojevich, the criticism actually may help these Republicans electorally by putting some distance between themselves and a very unpopular person. Not many Democrats suffered electoral consequences from their past relationships with Blagojevich mainly because they so thoroughly trashed him at the end.
Congress is preparing to vote on a bill that would impose a nationwide ban on abortion at 20 weeks. This dangerous, out-of-touch legislation is nothing more than yet another attempt to restrict women’s access to safe, legal abortion.
Nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it’s often in very complex circumstances. For example, severe fetal anomalies and serious risks to the woman’s health — the kind of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available.
20-week bans are also highly unpopular throughout the country. 61% of all voters say abortion should be legal after 20 weeks. Plus, Democrats (78%), Republicans (62%), and Independents (71%) say this is the wrong issue for lawmakers to be spending time on.
*** UPDATE *** Illinois ACLU…
It is a sad reflection that seven members of our Illinois Congressional delegation yesterday issued a statement that purposefully misrepresented the facts about Illinois House Bill 40, signed into law by Governor Bruce Rauner last week. That new law simply extends coverage for health care, including abortion care, to all women in our state, even if they get their health insurance through the State. The law in no way changes abortion law in Illinois regarding when an abortion can be legally and safely performed. It is simply political distortion to say otherwise – and these lawmakers should retract that assertion.
It is fascinating that the Congressmen link their fake critique of House Bill 40 to federal legislation they support – H.R. 36. This abortion ban relies on fake “science” and fake claims. The assertion that the Congressmen supported the federal measure as a response to House Bill 40 is laughable and should fool no one. These seven members are long-time anti-abortion partisans, who have supported numerous restrictions on the ability of women in Illinois and across the country to make the most intimate decisions – about when and if to become a parent.
We can only stand in bewilderment that members of our congressional delegation champion H.R. 36, which counts among its prime sponsors a member of Congress who urged a woman with whom he had an affair to terminate her pregnancy. This is hypocrisy and political partisanship of the highest order.
House Bill 40 will help women in Illinois. These members of Congress should applaud, not condemn, such legislation.
Gubernatorial hopeful J.B. Pritzker had the most damning take on President Donald Trump, calling him “a racist and a bigot and a xenophobe and a liar.”
Cook County’s penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages, often called the “soda tax,” would be repealed under legislation (SB 2238) filed by State Sen. Chapin Rose.
“Many people just ‘roll their eyes’ at Cook County’s new soda tax as more of the same from the ‘nanny state’ that is Chicago,” Rose said. “But, people need to realize that Chicago’s actions will have a direct negative impact here in Central Illinois as one of the primary ingredients in any sweetened beverage is corn. So, agriculture will take a hit under this tax that is aimed at lowering consumption. Moreover, downstate companies and industries like ADM and Tate & Lyle and the shipping sector are directly engaged in the manufacturing of these ingredients. So make no mistake, Cook County’s actions will negatively impact us.
“I previously fought my own Republican Leader, and successfully, when she and others in the legislature last spring wanted to tax sugary drinks at the statewide level. But now Cook County is imposing its own tax. Thankfully, it looks like even some Chicago Democrats have had enough, so I am filing this bill and will be encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in the effort to undo Cook County’s insanity. Many Democrats have already signed onto a similar repeal in the House. Let’s give the Democrats in the Senate a chance to sign onto this bill and see if we can’t move it forward.”
The person most actively pushing a sweetened beverage tax at the state level last spring was Gov. Rauner, who isn’t mentioned above.
Nationally, about 6 percent of corn is used for sweeteners or corn syrup. The Illinois Corn Growers Association did not take an official position on the Cook County tax, but [Tricia Braid, communications director for the Illinois Corn Growers Association] says they would oppose expanding the penny-per-ounce increase statewide. […]
Mike Doherty, senior economist with the Illinois Farm Bureau, agrees the impact now might be small, but any expansion of the tax could become a problem.
“[Corn syrup] is a component of what drives the demand for corn. So farmers do have a stake in it,” Doherty said. “The concern would be these taxes would be replicated in other large metro areas and would become a part of coast-to-coast taxation.”
Last December, he forwarded $50 million of his personal fortune to his campaign committee, signaling to others who might consider challenging him within the Republican party. A campaign spokesman insists Rauner’s petitions are on the street now and will be filed in December.
However, when asked directly about his re-election on Tuesday, Rauner said, “If you just watch and see how I’m working, the one thing I can say to you is I will never give up on working to protect Illinois, working to create a better future for the people of Illinois. I will never give up, I will never back down, never give in. Our system is broken, it’s fundamentally broken and I believe that we can have a movement, a movement of all people in Illinois.”
“It doesn’t matter what political party, doesn’t matter what background, or what part of the state, we can have a movement to dramatically change Illinois and improve our state,” the first-term governor continued. “And I believe we can do this in the coming months, I will do everything I can to help lead that movement. We need to change, our system is broken. We need dramatic change.”
Rauner added that “this is not about Democrats versus Republicans, this is about the people against a corrupt system, that is failing the people, we will change it by being strong together.”
* He also said this today and then tweeted it out…
Illinois is worth fighting for. You deserve great schools, value for tax dollars and a booming economy. That's our mission. #twillpic.twitter.com/8CVc6K86Um
* It’s possible. The union which represents the guards at Cook County Jail isn’t exactly in love with Sheriff Dart…
State Rep. Edward Acevedo updates his campaign committee to support a run for Cook County Sheriff against incumbent Tom Dart #twillhttps://t.co/HPAcKD65UD
The relationship between Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and Sheriff Tom Dart has virtually broken down over a key new labor contract, with a bitter exchange between the two offices over a pending deal with the Teamsters Union covering 3,500 guards at the county jail and related positions.
In a series of letters I obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request—you can read two of them at the end of this story—Dart’s office says it is “disappointed” that Preckwinkle aides “did not follow through” in bargaining work-rule changes needed to curb soaring overtime at the jail. Preckwinkle’s office replied that Dart’s letter is “full of mischaracterizations and blame” and that it’s Dart’s fault more concessions were not obtained.
At one point, the Preckwinkle letter suggested that, to get what he wanted, Dart need to go slower and “be willing to give something in exchange for what you hope to receive from the unions. . . .You have to build relationships, build trust with your employees.”
Dart and Preckwinkle often have clashed through the years. Nonetheless, this sharp exchange is dropping jaws all over the County Building, with board members saying it provides a “disturbing” and “alarming” look at bargaining on the new contract, which could come up for board action in October and, if approved, set a pattern for deals now being negotiated with other unions.
Illinois Republicans are split over whether to support Gov. Bruce Rauner after his decision to sign the abortion funding measure, House Bill 40.
Wheaton State Rep. Jeanne Ives has been approached by conservatives to consider opposing Rauner in the March primary, but for now, she is noncommittal.
“I’m not actively pursuing it, I’m letting it kind of boil up and we’ll see what happens,” Ives said. “I’m hoping somebody comes forward to run against him and we take him out as Republicans. Or I’m hoping that he decides on his own, ‘Look my base is eroded beneath me, there’s no chance of me winning because my base is going to stay home.’”
Wow! Almost 100 likes already! Thank you for showing your support! Invite your friends to like the page and join us in supporting Jeanne Ives for Governor.
As candidates for legislative positions jump into various races in Southern Illinois and around the state, state Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, is still waiting to determine his next move.
McCarter, who is not running for re-election in 2018, has been recommended by Illinois Republican congressional members to be the next ambassador to Kenya. He has interviewed for the position, but the White House has yet to decide who it will nominate. […]
McCarter’s reaction to Gov. Bruce Rauner’s decision to sign House Bill 40 allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions left him and others saying Rauner should not run for re-election.
McCarter added he’s had numerous people ask him to consider a run for the governor’s office.
“My statement that he should not run for re-election has nothing to do with me and what my plans are,” McCarter said. “I believe he has betrayed in the greatest way the people that got him elected.”
“I was frustrated,” said State Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, who was recently named the party’s Senate leader. “This is a bill that I opposed. I have voted pro-life, I am pro file. I had a number of meetings with the governor, one-on-one, to talk about this.”
Brady told WJBC’s Scott Laughlin Illinois Democrats pushed through the abortion measure with Rauner in office to cause a rift within the Republican party.
Brady added the governor isn’t pushing a social agenda, but he doubts anyone would mount a primary challenge against Rauner next year.
“The governor would be very tough to beat and I think anyone who is thinking about a primary run better have a lot of money and better realize this is a big state and it’s hard just to jump into,” Brady said.
Brady said any challenger would likely need a lot of money and wouldn’t have a lot of time.
Former Springfield restaurant owner Mike Murphy won the endorsement of the Sangamon County Republican Party Monday night to replace retiring state Rep. Sara Wojcicki Jimenez.
Murphy, 63, is the former owner of Charlie Parker’s Diner in Springfield.
Murphy beat out six other candidates to win the nod for the 99th House District seat from the party’s precinct committeemen Monday.
Seven candidates presented credentials to the party’s executive committee Monday before the meeting of all precinct committeemen. Party chair Rosemarie Long said the field was whittled to two before Murphy got the endorsement. Mike Coffey Jr. was the other finalist, she said.
“I think they liked (Murphy’s) business background,” Long said. “He also had farming in the family, and I think his passion to devote his full time to the office, I think that swayed people.”
Illinois’ new school funding plan — approved in August and hailed as a historic change — relies on the legislature to give every school the same state aid it got last year, plus push another $350 million through a new formula. That $350 million is crucial because it’s the part designed to address the inequity that has plagued Illinois schools for decades.
State Sen. Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant, a Democrat from Shorewood, wants to make sure lawmakers don’t skip that step.
She filed a measure today tying it to a tax break for people who provide private school scholarships. […]
Since the General Assembly has a history of “pro-rating” school funding, Bertino-Tarrant wanted to find a way to hold lawmakers to their $350 million promise to public schools. Her legislation would nix those private school tax credits any fiscal year the General Assembly fails to appropriate full funding for public schools.
Bertino-Tarrant’s measure, Senate Bill 2236, was filed in response to Senate Bill 1947, which includes a five year pilot program that would award a 75 percent tax credit to donors that contribute to scholarship funds for students to attend non-public schools. The credits are capped at of up to $1 million per taxpayer and $75 million statewide.
Bertino-Tarrant said this could take valuable taxpayer dollars away from Illinois’ public schools especially if the minimum funding level is not met.
“I’m proud that the General Assembly worked in a bipartisan manner to put our children first, now we need to take the next step,” Bertino-Tarrant said. “Since we embarked on this mission, our goal has remained funding our schools in a way that guarantees our children are provided an excellent education regardless of their zip code. This initiative solidifies our mission by keeping Illinois’ children our top priority.”
The new school funding mechanism outlined in Senate Bill 1947 established an evidence-based funding formula to dispense state dollars to public schools. The formula institutes a base funding minimum for school districts that serves as a hold harmless to ensure schools do not lose state dollars the next year.
Any additional funding the General Assembly appropriates is distributed through a tier-based system that prioritizes the state’s poorest and disadvantaged schools. The funding plan outlined in the new law includes a minimum funding level of $350 million in additional funding each year, with the goal of meeting the total statewide adequacy target over a period of time.
* Sen. Daniel Biss touts himself as a math wiz, but one of his papers had to be retracted, which is an exceedingly rare occurrence…
The Sun-Times inquired about some errors made in the Evanston Democrat’s mathematical papers, including an “erratum” — or an error in printing or writing — made to the Annals of Mathematics about a 2003 paper and another “erratum” submitted for a paper he wrote in 2006. Another paper from 2002 was retracted. Some of the errors were noted on Retraction Watch, which tracks scientific errors.
The website in February noted a retraction in a paper Biss wrote in 2002. “Topology and its Applications” wrote that the article was retracted “after receiving a complaint about anomalies.” The editors asked for further reviews “which indicated that the definitions in the paper are ambiguous and most results were false.” The website followed up and said the journal noted the findings were “inaccurate” but “not fraudulent.” […]
Biss’ campaign noted that “in a few cases” some of his papers “didn’t stand up.” But they said “revisions” are part of a normal part of the academic process. A CBS News story from 2015 noted that just 0.02 percent of some three million mathematical papers were retracted, but retractions are not necessarily seen as a bad thing. Instead, many view them as a better option than scientists and mathematicians choosing to let their errors live on in the academic realm.
“Theoretical mathematics is a field built on proposing new ideas that are scrutinized by peers over time, revised and perfected to move understanding forward,” Biss’s campaign said. “Whether it was training at MIT or the University of Chicago, Daniel has had dozens of academic papers reviewed by his peers and published. In a few cases, further research has found that the case posited in the original article didn’t stand up, and he revised his findings.”
* Biss recently got a very detailed question about the issue at an event. Biss had been invited to explain his support for the pension reform bill…
AUDIENCE QUESTION: I have a question about your general candidacy. From what I’ve read, it seems you’ve had two camps in your professional life so far, when you were an academic and now as a politician. And I see, you know, some of your history in both of those having two big blunders. Excuse me, but two big blunders. As far as your academic career, you made some fame and notoriety for yourself by publishing a few papers, and they were put into very good mathematical journals, for which, you know, you were applauded for. But as you know, a Russian mathematician found that the math that was involved in the proofs was fatally flawed, and so you were forced to withdraw those publications from the press. And I imagine that affected, you know, being at the University of Chicago too, your publication record, maybe your tenure track. I don’t know about those details, I’m just speculating.
Now at that time then, you also decided to switch courses then and go into politics. And you’re most famous for what you just talked about, and that is the SB1 bill. Because it is the bill you co-sponsored that had the most far-reaching affects to the state of Illinois. But again, a big blunder. A catastrophe really, I would call it, because of course it enraged state employees. I was at Eastern Illinois University. We spent two years raging against that bill that you co-sponsored. We’d go to Springfield, we rallied, we sent postcards, we’d make phone calls. And we got nowhere, of course it was passed like you said, and ultimately the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed it to be illegal. And it went up in flames. So what was the outcome of that? Nothing good. That bill that you co-sponsored disen- not disenfranchised but disappointed so many Democrats, and I know some of them, good Democrats, who said I’m not voting on the Democratic ticket this time around when Quinn went up for governorship. And some of them said they were even going to vote for Rauner, but they were good Democrats otherwise. And Rauner won by a sliver, and I think it’s a fair statement that some have proposed, that a lot of the blame for Rauner coming to power and wrecking the devastation that he’s done must be laid at your feet because of the SB1 bill.
So now you want us to endorse you as governor to fix the mess that you helped create. So my question here, I guess, is why did it take you almost four years to come to the conclusion, from 2013 to now, that it was a mistake? Because I saw a video of you in 2013 being not apologetic and being defensive about that bill when you were being challenged by some retired professors, or teachers rather. And then I met you about a year and a half ago in Mattoon, at an event that the local Democrats put on. And I asked you about the SB after you gave your talk and you were equally defensive and not apologetic. So now I hear – and I hear that you went on Fred Klonsky’s radio show and you were apologetic. So I assume that’s true. And I hear today that yes, you regret having done what you did. But why would it take so long? Excuse me for being cynical, but it happens to coincide when you’re running for governor. So can you calm my fears about your record and what it’s all about?
BISS: Sure. About my academic record, you know I’ve published dozens of papers and it’s very normal in the course of academic life for a subsequent academic to come and poke holes. And I think my academic record was strong, and I’m proud of a lot of the work that I did. The great majority of which, of course, did hold up. And I think that’s a standard part of the push and pull about that. Happy to go into more detail about that if you’re interested, but I think that’s probably not what most of the people here are hoping to hear.
So I’ll say a couple things. The first thing is that I think your timing is a little bit, a little bit off. Certainly for several years now I’ve been giving that spiel, almost identical to what I just said, since long before I was even considering running for governor, much less actually running. I spent a lot of time, a lot of sleepless nights during that effort and after that effort thinking about what that all meant. And I think an important turning point was the supreme court decision that helped contextualize, as the courts are very useful in doing, not just what that narrow piece of legislation itself meant, but what the opportunities the state of Illinois had at the time were. And if you recall, the argument that the attorney general used to defend the bill in the court was exactly this kind of, ‘hey listen, this is rough, this is frustrating, this is hard, but really we had no choice but – and so we had to.’ And that’s the argument that people who supported the bill used, and that’s the argument that the court shot down.
And watching that argument play out, watching both sides make those arguments during the course of the previous year as the litigation happened and seeing the court decision really made a big impact on me. And I don’t want to go through the calendar in a sort of argumentative way, but I remember talking in the summer of 2015 in a way that was almost identical to what I just said to you.
Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said during Monday’s briefing that “there’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country.”
Asked about the issue again, Huckabee Sanders went on to bring up Chicago violence, as the president often has.
“I think one of the things that we don’t want to do is try to create laws that won’t create or stop these types of things from happening,” Sanders said. “I think if you look to Chicago, where you had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year, they have the strictest gun laws in the country. That certainly hasn’t helped there. So, I think we have to, when that time comes for those conversations to take place, then I think we need to look at things that may actually have a real impact.”
Some of Chicago’s previously tough gun laws, though, have been struck down in court. The Supreme Court has thrown out the city’s bans on handguns and gun stores. And a court decision led to Illinois now allowing for the concealed carry of firearms.
Donald Trump said, “In Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the United States, probably you could say by far, they have more gun violence than any other city.”
Chicago once had very tough regulations against guns, but they’ve been considerably watered down after the Supreme Court ruled that cities can’t ban handguns.
Additionally, the state at one time didn’t allow concealed carry, and now it does. Its rules for allowing concealed carry are more relaxed than in California or New York — states that allow local jurisdictions to regulate concealed carry within their boundaries.
Nor are penalties for violating gun laws in Illinois the toughest in the United States. Mandatory minimum sentences make New York state’s laws tougher than those in Illinois. […]
* NFL gear to be shot at in shooting range near Ottawa, IL: Below Buffalo Range’s announcement, a woman asked on Facebook, “What are you going to do with (the gear)? Burn it?” The range replied, “Destroy it the only way we know how…,” with an image of a handgun at the end of the sentence.
I don’t know if you saw this yesterday, but the Census Bureau released their 2016 estimates for population and other demographics by congressional district. As we are expected to lose a district after 2020, this gives a clue as to where the losses have been greatest so far this decade. I’ve converted the raw population estimates into percentages that each congressional district is short of the national average.
If population trends continue this way through 2020, then IL-01, 04, 12, 16, and 17 will all be at least 10% below the national average by the time of the census. That roughly suggests the amount of population those districts would have to add to comply with the next round of redistricting.
* A friend sent me this the other day. He circled the two items and blacked out the name…
Um, after HB40, isn’t he now part of the liberal special interests? /s
And, yes, that letter was dated a couple of weeks ago and things have changed a lot since he signed HB40. But still, he’s quoted by his own campaign committee as firmly saying he’s running for reelection.
[Rep. Jeanne Ives] said she and other Republicans remember in the 2014 primary when Rauner told them he was personally anti-abortion but had no social agenda, and instead would focus on economics. She later learned that Rauner had privately signed a statement that same year with an abortion rights advocacy group — which didn’t become public until this year — that he supported the public funding of abortion.
“It just feels he was the Manchurian candidate all along and we’re just now figuring it out,” Ives said.
Rauner’s campaign spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski responds: “It was well-known in 2014 that Bruce was pro-choice. Any claim to the contrary is preposterous.”
So, how could Rep. Ives fall for this? You’ll recall that even the late Jack Roeser, who at the time was the state’s most prominent pro-life activist, said during the 2014 campaign that Rauner is a “morally right-to-life guy” even though Rauner had said he was pro-choice.
* One of the answers is right in front of us and it hasn’t been covered much, if at all, by the media. This is what Gov. Rauner said during his HB40 press conference last week…
The passions, the emotions, the sentiments on both sides of these issues are very powerful. I respect them very much as a person.
The moral argument against HB40 is very powerful. In my view, it’s not debatable. It is irrefutable. I respect it very much.
Through my life, I have respected that view and supported candidates for office who are pro-life. And I have voted for and supported public officials and public servants in office who are pro-life.
So, he firmly believes that the moral argument against the legislation he signed into law is “irrefutable.” He’s been saying stuff like that for years and that’s what people like Rep. Ives and Roeser heard, or wanted to hear.
On the other side of this issue, the arguments, the position for women’s rights, women’s equality, women’s health are very powerful. I support them. I personally am pro-choice, I always have been. And I’ve made no qualms about that when I was elected governor. And I have not and never will change my views.
I personally believe that a woman should have, must have the right to decide what goes on in her own body. […]
I also believe that no woman should be forced to make a different decision that another woman would make purely based on her income.
When he talks to pro-life people he emphasizes his belief that life begins at conception. And when he is with pro-choice people he emphasizes his pro-choice beliefs. And that allowed him to get elected, but now this dichotomy has caught up to him.
* The elephant in the room is that Rauner’s money bought silence. His big checkbook convinced people to look the other way or bite their tongues. Terri Koyne, a former county party chairman, penned this for the Illinois Review…
The ILGOP was broke at the time and Rauner promised unlimited funding. This was their opportunity to publicly cast aside the Platform and the party’s conservative base (something that they had been doing for years behind closed doors, by the way).
Long story short – they willingly sold the party to Bruce Rauner.
The ILGOP selling out was bad, but who was the most deceptive during the 2014 election? By far, it was his supporters on the ground who were the most dishonest in all this. I include some of the Tea Party-type groups in this category. These devoted supporters were bullies and almost militant at times. The people I dealt with were telling people that Rauner was “personally pro-life”, and when further questioned on the issue, would quickly follow with “But we shouldn’t be focused on social issues this election anyway. Rauner said he won’t do anything to expand abortions in Illinois, so we need to stay focused on fiscal issues.”
* Rep. Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) referred to Rauner’s signature on HB40 last week as “unconscionable and the ultimate betrayal of trust of the majority of Illinois citizens who oppose the destruction of unborn children at taxpayers’ expense.”
Morrison is one of the most pro-life members in either chamber. This 2014 video has been making the rounds lately. Part of it shows Rep. Morrison explaining why he supported Rauner’s campaign at the time. It’s definitely worth a watch…
The primary’s over. We had four candidates running. I had friends in each one of the four camps, believe it or not. I stayed out of it as far as an endorsement goes, but now Rauner’s our candidate. […]
With the second-highest unemployment rate in Illinois and likely to climb higher if we can’t turn around this economy, funds for crisis pregnancy centers, for right to life groups, for Illinois Family Institute, they dry up. If someone can’t afford to have a roof over their head, they can’t write a check to Dave Smith at IFI. […]
You know the issue, whether it’s marriage, whether it’s right to life, it’s not strictly fought in the legislature. That battle is not fought in the courts, it’s not fought alone in the legislature, it’s not fought alone in the schools.
Three reasons: Partisanship, economics and it’s not solely a legislative issue.
On HB40, Rauner put himself in a trick bag by taking two diametrically opposed positions. He was going to burn somebody.
Rauner decided he could betray the ones who took his money; figured they were bought and paid for, a reasonable assumption. After all, they were complicit in all the damage he caused running up billions in unpaid bills and taking the wrecking ball to social services and higher ed. They sure weren’t looking out for their constituents by supporting Rauner’s actions then.
So now some Republican lawmakers are “outraged?” Then give Rauner his money back. Refuse to take any more from him. Show that your principles outweigh his principal.
* Mark Brown notes that as vulnerable as Gov. Rauner may seem, he’s not yet beaten, and Brown expects the governor to run for reelection…
As he has for the past four years, Rauner is going to campaign against what he will portray as the corrupt Illinois political establishment — personified by Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan — that has blocked him from accomplishing his goals.
He’s going to ask voters for the sake of the future of Illinois to allow him to finish the job that he’s started.
And Rauner will spend his millions to savage his to-be-determined Democratic opponent in campaign ads until voters are nearly as sick of that candidate as they are of him. […]
There are those who argue the businessman in Rauner will look at his re-election chances and the tens of millions of his personal wealth that he’s expended to date and decide it’s a bad investment to double that.
But the wealthy businessman has said from the start that he made an eight-year commitment to politics because he believed it would take that long to turn Illinois around. And I don’t believe for a moment that we’ve seen the outside limit of what he’s willing to spend to achieve his goal.
But supporters say Rauner may actually be better positioned now to at least remain competitive in a general election in a blue state where Hillary Clinton won by double digits last year. The Democratic gubernatorial primary is crowded but J.B. Pritzker, a billionaire, has consolidated support of major labor groups and party insiders. Pritzker has already demonstrated he can go toe to toe with Rauner financially and has spent some $14 million, advertising on TV and radio for months.
Rauner’s decision to sign automatic voter registration, and a bill making it easier for transgender individuals to obtain changes to their birth certificates, will burnish his appeal to moderates in both parties, supporters say.
“There are a lot of people I believe who aren’t necessarily vocal right now that totally support what the governor has done. It’s a center to left-of-center state, and being pro-choice or being for health care for poor women is not necessarily a bad place to be as a Republican,” said Pat Brady, a former Illinois Republican Party chairman. “It doesn’t make sense to me that all Republicans are going to revolt against him because he doesn’t like HB40. I understand completely that people are upset over HB40 … What are they going to do? Support J.B. Pritzker? [Democratic House Speaker Mike] Madigan’s guy?”
“Taking out a sitting governor sitting on that kind of money is no easy feat. It’s a heavy lift, you need manpower and money. He vetoed the tax hike — that is one of the biggest things he’s going to be able to run on, particularly in a Republican primary. A massive education overhaul got through … For Republicans in Illinois, he’s probably their best hope.”
Illinois House Republican leader Jim Durkin could be getting a challenge in the March primary, a reflection of the continued and deepening turmoil within the state GOP.
Burr Ridge Mayor Mickey Straub said Monday that while he has long thought about running for higher office, the “icing on the cake” came when several Republicans joined with Democrats in July to enact an income tax hike and budget package over GOP Gov. Bruce Rauner’s veto. […]
Straub was featured Monday on WIND-AM 560’s morning show hosted by Dan Proft, a failed 2010 Republican primary governor candidate. Proft also is a political operative who was once a Rauner ally and is now at odds with the governor after he signed the abortion bill.
On his show, Proft was highly critical of Durkin. But Proft said his Liberty Principles political action committee, which got $2.5 million from Rauner last year, “did not convince anybody to run” against Durkin.
Straub said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune that he had been encouraged by many conservative groups to challenge Durkin, including getting support from Proft and Patrick Hughes. Proft and Hughes co-founded the politically tax-exempt group, the Illinois Opportunity Project.
* Meanwhile, I asked the ILGOP for a response to all this, so here is Chairman Tim Schneider’s quote…
“I am strongly supporting Leader Durkin in his primary. As Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, my sole focus is on beating the Democrats and breaking up the Madigan Machine that has destroyed this state. When Republicans are fighting each other, Mike Madigan wins and Illinois loses.”
* But I also asked for a specific comment on Dan Proft and this is what I was told…
Concerning Proft, the Illinois Republican Party has no comment at this time.
One reason why Gov. Bruce Rauner promised to veto HB40 last spring was to prevent a House Republican revolt on the state budget.
The bill deletes a so-called “trigger” provision in current law, which states that if the Roe v. Wade case is overturned by the US Supreme Court, Illinois would automatically revert to outlawing abortions.
There’s a dispute about whether this is needed, but the more controversial part of the bill would allow state funding of abortions through Medicaid and the state employee group health insurance program.
Everyone knew from the beginning of the two-year budget impasse that the House Republicans were the key to victory for both sides. As long as Rauner could hold them completely together, he could continue the impasse fight with the Democrats. By April, however, mutinous rumblings were growing in that caucus and one way Rauner could placate them was to swear he would veto HB40 if it ever reached his desk.
There are no remaining pro-choice Republicans in the House, and there are certainly no supporters of taxpayer funded abortions in the caucus. Legislative threats were made to the pro-choice governor that there would be holy heck to pay if he signed HB40 into law. They’d abandon him in droves and there would be nothing he could do to stop them from working with the Democrats on a budget solution. So the governor told several House Republicans to their faces that he’d veto the bill.
But then a couple of months later, some of the same House Republicans who’d been demanding an HB40 veto broke with the governor and voted for the tax hike.
That tax vote may have played into the governor’s decision to become the first American governor to sign a taxpayer-funded abortion bill into law. He may have simply decided that he wasn’t bound to his promise because the House Republicans didn’t hold their caucus together.
The trouble is, he made that veto promise to more than just the House Republicans. As Sen. Dan McConchie (R-Hawthorn Woods) pointed out after Rauner signed the bill into law, the governor made a “public commitment” to veto the bill. “His flip-flopping on this issue,”
McConchie said in a statement, “raises serious questions on whether the Governor’s word can be trusted on other matters.”
The reason this issue became such a huge crisis in the first place is that Rauner’s can’t be taken as truth. This started to become apparent on election night, when the governor claimed during his victory speech that he’d spoken to House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton even though he hadn’t.
Rauner spent more than two years traveling the state to tell everyone who would listen that he would stop the Democrats from muscling through a Chicago Public Schools “bailout,” but then he signed a bill into law that actually gave CPS more money than the Democrats had proposed.
The governor told the Chicago Tribune in the spring of 2015 that a budget crisis would give him the leverage to obtain concessions from Democrats on his pro-business, anti-union agenda, then flat-out blamed the Democrats for the next two years for creating the crisis the governor had wanted.
I mean, the man repeatedly lied about his own grandfather to score political points. The governor has claimed over and over that his “best friend” growing up had immigrated from Sweden - the last time was when he bragged about it during a speech to an immigrant rights group when he signed a bill into law restricting what the police can do to undocumented immigrants. In fact, his grandfather was born in the United States. Politifact awarded the claim its harshest rating: “Pants on fire.”
The list is just endless with this guy. When Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich publicly calls you out for breaking your promise to veto HB40, you know you have a problem.
Candidate Rauner explicitly promised the pro-choice group Personal PAC in 2014 that he would sign legislation for government-funded abortions. So the question really boiled down to who the governor would wind up lying to.
With a tax hike passed over his veto and an education funding reform plan in place, the calculation could’ve been that he just doesn’t need the House Republicans for much of anything next year.
But the governor’s campaign insists that Rauner is running for reelection. If he manages to win, he’s going to have to eventually find a way to reestablish his relationships with legislative Republicans. Time will likely heal some of these wounds within his own party, but only if he makes a genuine attempt to reestablish his credibility.
If you’ve watched much network or cable TV over the past six months, you may already have grown weary of all the J.B. Pritzker TV ads. And it won’t ease up anytime soon. The billionaire has spent millions of his own dollars since early May to fund his Democratic bid for governor, but the primary election is still more than five months away.
Can TV spending alone buy an election? Nope. But Pritzker already has locked down the endorsement of several unions, including the Illinois AFL-CIO, along with lots of county parties, like the Cook County Democrats, and statewide officeholders Secretary of State Jesse White and Comptroller Susana Mendoza. He has also put together a large staff that’s functioning at a pace and a level far above anyone else, including Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner’s team.
Can Pritzker be stopped?
As I always say, the true beauty of politics is that it can be so unpredictable at times. Plenty of seemingly “inevitable” candidates have lost. Even Chris Kennedy looked like he could have a lock on the Democratic nomination for governor a year or so ago. But then another inevitable-looking Democratic candidate lost the presidential race and Pritzker, suddenly without prospects for a Cabinet-level appointment, decided to run for governor.
It was always presumed that a member of the Kennedy family—the son of Bobby, nephew of JFK—would have no trouble raising tons of money. But in the last quarterly fundraising reporting period, which ended June 30, he raised just $700,000. That’s pocket change when you’re up against a billionaire. Pritzker, by comparison, raised $14 million in the third quarter; Biss raised $1 million.
So, everyone I’ve talked to about this campaign says one thing and only one thing about Kennedy: He needs to
